Of Particular Significance

Category: Particle Physics

If you’re curious to know what my book is about and why it’s called “Waves in an Impossible Sea”, then watching this video is currently the quickest and most direct way to find out from me personally. It’s a public talk that I gave to a general audience at Harvard, part of the Harvard Bookstore science book series.

My intent in writing the book was to illuminate central aspects of the cosmos — and of how we humans fit into it — that are often glossed over by scientists and science writers, at least in the books and videos I’ve come across. So if you watch the lecture, I think there’s a good chance that you’ll learn something about the world that you didn’t know, perhaps about the empty space that forms the fabric of the universe, or perhaps about what “quantum” in “quantum physics” really means and why it matters so much to you and me.

The video contains 35 minutes of me presenting, plus some Q&A at the end. Feel free to ask questions of your own in the comments below, or on my book-questions page; I’ll do my best to answer them.

Picture of POSTED BY Matt Strassler

POSTED BY Matt Strassler

ON November 4, 2024

Recently a reader, having read my post about why the speed of light seems so fast, sent me two questions that highlight important cosmic issues.

  1. Is there in fact anything within physics as it’s presently understood that indeed prevents […] there existing something other than atoms as some basic “unit”?
  2. I’ve long wondered why it is that despite the seeming brilliance of humans at building such complex understanding, we are still pushing at such limits as the time it would take to fly a space ship to another galaxy. Is it really true that nothing could ever exceed ‘c’ and thus we are indeed doomed to take lifetimes to travel beyond our solar system? Or is it because we have not yet discovered something much more fundamental about the universe, such as an ‘alternative to’ the atom?

These deep questions are examples of an even broader pair of questions about reality.

  • Which aspects of the cosmos are contingent?—in that one could easily imagine a similar universe in which these details are thoroughly altered.
  • Which aspects of the cosmos appear rock solid?—in that they are so deeply integrated into the universe that it is difficult to imagine changing them without ruining everything.
(more…)
Picture of POSTED BY Matt Strassler

POSTED BY Matt Strassler

ON October 28, 2024

It’s been quite a week… Spectacular northern lights for hours on Thursday night. A great comet in the evening skies (though so far I’ve have only caught glimpses, thanks to atrocious viewing conditions.) And now, I’m at CERN (the pan-European particle physics laboratory) for the first time since the pandemic began. I’ll be giving a talk at a conference of CMS experimenters. (CMS and ATLAS are the two general purpose experiments at the Large Hadron Collider [LHC].)

The topic of the workshop is a novel technique called “Level-1 Scouting” — though it isn’t really about “scouting” for anything. It has to do with evading the strait-jacket of the trigger, an essential feature of data gathering at each of the LHC experiments. With tens of millions of collisions per second, the data flood at CMS is too great, and only a tiny fraction of these collisions can be stored. The trigger decides real-time which ones to keep and which ones to discard forever. That’s been the basic rule since the LHC began running.

But this rule no longer applies, thanks to new technology and human ingenuity. CMS now uses level-1 scouting to record sketchy information about every single collision that happens in their detector. LHCb, with a smaller detector, was the first to try something along these lines. ATLAS is on a parallel track. These developments have the potential, looking ahead, to substantially enhance the capability of these detectors. More about this after I’ve given my talk.

Auroras after sunset. (These were as bright to the naked eye)
Comet A3 after sunset. (Brighter than to the naked eye.)

Post-sunset light over CERN. (As to the naked eye.)

Picture of POSTED BY Matt Strassler

POSTED BY Matt Strassler

ON October 14, 2024

This is my second post on the subject of why “the speed of light (in empty space)”, more accurately referred to as “the cosmic speed limit”, is so fast. This speed, denoted c, is about 186,000 miles (300,000 km) per second, which does indeed seem quick.

But as I pointed out in my first post on this subject, this isn’t really the right question, because it implicitly views humans as centrally important and asks why the cosmos as strange. That’s backward. We should instead ask why we ourselves are so slow. Not only does this honor the cosmos properly, making it clear that it is humans that are the oddballs here, this way of asking the question leads us to the answer.

And the answer is this: ordinary atomic material, from which we are made, is fragile. If a living creature were to move (relative to the objects around it) at speeds anywhere close to c, it couldn’t possibly survive its first slip and fall, or its first absent-minded collision with a door frame.

Today I’ll use a principled argument, founded on basic particle physics and its implications for atomic physics, to show that any living creature made from atoms will inevitably view the cosmic speed limit as extremely fast compared to the speeds that it ordinarily experiences.

(more…)
Picture of POSTED BY Matt Strassler

POSTED BY Matt Strassler

ON October 3, 2024

Things have been extremely busy! I have

If any of these might interest you, here are the details!

(more…)
Picture of POSTED BY Matt Strassler

POSTED BY Matt Strassler

ON September 20, 2024

Back in April 2022, the CDF experiment, which operated at the long-ago-closed Tevatron particle collider. presented the world’s most precise measurement of the mass of the particle known as the “W boson“. Their result generated some excited commentary, because it disagreed by 0.1% with the prediction of the Standard Model of particle physics. Even though the mismatch was tiny, it was significant, because the CDF measurement was so exceptionally precise. Any disagreement of such high significance would imply that something has to give: either the Standard Model is missing something, or the CDF measurement is incorrect.

(more…)
Picture of POSTED BY Matt Strassler

POSTED BY Matt Strassler

ON September 19, 2024

Every now and then, I get a question from a reader that I suspect many other readers share. When possible, I try to reply to such questions here, so that the answer can be widely read.

Here’s the question for today:

Below I give a qualitative answer, and then go on to present a few more details. Let me know in the comments if this didn’t satisfactorily address the question!

(more…)
Picture of POSTED BY Matt Strassler

POSTED BY Matt Strassler

ON July 25, 2024

The mass of a single proton, often said to be made of three quarks, is almost 1 GeV/c2. To be more precise, a proton’s mass is 0.938 GeV/c2, while that of a neutron is 0.939 GeV/c2.

But the masses of up and down quarks, found in protons and neutrons, are each much less than 0.01 GeV/c2. In short, the mass of each quark is less than one percent of a proton’s or neutron’s mass. If a proton were really made from three quarks, then there would seem to be a huge mismatch.

(Here and below, by “mass” I mean “rest mass” — an object’s intrinsic mass, which does not change with speed. It is sometimes called “invariant mass”. [Particle physicists usually just call it “mass”, though.])

Part of the explanation for the apparent discrepancy is that a proton or neutron is, in fact, made from far more than just three quarks. In its interior, one would find many gluons and a variety of quarks and anti-quarks. However, that doesn’t resolve the issue.

  • Gluons, like photons, have zero rest mass, so they don’t help at all, naively speaking.
  • The typical number of quarks and anti-quarks inside a proton, while more than three, is too small to add up to the proton’s full mass;

And thus one cannot explain the proton or neutron’s large mass as simply the sum of the masses of the objects inside it. The discrepancy remains.

Moreover, as can be verified using either strong theoretical arguments in analogous systems or direct numerical simulations, protons and neutrons would still have a substantial mass even if the quarks and anti-quarks they contain had none at all! Mass — from no mass.

Clearly, then, the solution to the puzzle lies elsewhere.

(more…)
Picture of POSTED BY Matt Strassler

POSTED BY Matt Strassler

ON July 22, 2024

You might think I’m about to tell a joke. But no, not me. This is serious physics, folks!

Suppose a particle falls into a hole, and, as in a nightmare (or as in a certain 1970s movie featuring light sabers), the walls of the hole start closing in. The particle will just stay there, awaiting the end. But if the same thing happens to a wavicle, the outcome is very different. Like a magician, the wavicle will escape!

Today I’ll explain why.

(more…)
Picture of POSTED BY Matt Strassler

POSTED BY Matt Strassler

ON July 11, 2024

In my role as a teacher and explainer of physics, I have found that the ambiguities and subtleties of language can easily create confusion. This is especially true when well-known English words are reused in scientific contexts, where they may or may not be quite appropriate.

The word “particle”, as used to describe “elementary particles” such as electrons and quarks and photons, is arguably one such word. It risks giving the wrong impression as to what electrons etc. are really like. For this reason, I sometimes replace “particle” with the word “wavicle”, a word from the 1920s that has been getting some traction again in recent years. [I used it in my recent book, where I also emphasized the problems of language in communicating science.]

In today’s post I want to contrast the concepts of particle, wave and wavicle. What characterizes each of these notions? Understanding the answer is crucial for anyone who wants to grasp the workings of our universe.

(more…)
Picture of POSTED BY Matt Strassler

POSTED BY Matt Strassler

ON July 9, 2024

Search

Buy The Book

Reading My Book?

Got a question? Ask it here.

Media Inquiries

For media inquiries, click here.